Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?

From Conservapedia

This is the current revision of Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures? as edited by JZambrano(Talk | contribs) at 02:48, 5 September 2012. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

The true one and the false ones. - Even God doesn't say that. He never denies the reality of other Gods, He only commands that you should worship and call upon only Him (and punishes those who do not). (See: Exodus 20:3, Exodus 23:13, Deuteronomy 6:13, Judges 10:13 etc, etc, etc.) --Jeremiah4-22 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"Even God Doesn't say that....". You need to look a little closer at the Bible before you make statements like yours above. (See: 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "Therefore concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one." [Added Emphasis mine], 1 Corinthians 10:20 - "No, but I say that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons." both texts from NASB) --HSDad 14:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

God doesn't say that, it is Paul who says that. How can we accept this statement when it contradicts God's own word? (Exodus 20:3 - The First Commandment) Are you suggesting that Paul's word is more authoritative than God's? --Jeremiah4-22 10:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

HSDad is correct. Those "gods" referenced are demons, fallen angels being worshiped, as Paul said. The way you are defining gods is not how the Bible defines them. "Psalms 82:6-7 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." --Joshua Zambrano 03:48, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

I will say this before and i will say it again, the bible is not a book that was written by a single person or even group of people who all attempted to accurately record historical events. The bible was written by hundred of people, none of whom knew each other, a lot of it was written from hearsay and word of mouth stories and myths, the vast majority was written hundreds of years after the events, and even when the whole lot was finally finished, it has been changed, translated several times by different people and finally 'improved' by other authors. To hold up a book like that and say that you can take parts of it literally is just plain silly. Bolly Ottihw 09:19, 22 April 2007

No offense, but your point on the translation shows that you know very little on the issues of the debate. I encourage you to keep studying, but realize that we have the original language that it came in... the Greek and Hebrew. Now if you're talking about preservation, that's a miracle in and of itself. There are thousands upon thousands of manuscripts to compare. And the earliest ones that we have correlate very nicely to the later ones we have. Did you know that there is a whole field of science called textual criticism that deals with problems in the text and figuring out what the original might have been? For example, when a scribe was copying down something, and had been doing that all day, he would have been tired and might have accidentally looked at the word on the previous line and wrote that word in instead of the one he was supposed to.

Even I will be the first to admit that there are inconsistencies in the manuscripts that we have, and thousands of them. However, that is a deceiving statistic because most of them have to do with either spelling a word differently or simply words put in a different order. In Greek, word order is not as important as it is in English, so it changes nothing about meaning. In case you're wondering, I am studying ancient koine greek, and know this. I'm not just repeating someone else's opinion. --Ymmotrojam 20:32, 4 December 2007 (EST)

As seen at Bible manuscript evidence, we know the entire Old Testament we have today was preserved unchanged for 2,000 years of history because of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Your claim that it was changed and translated differently is false, because we have 2,000 year-old documents showing what the original text is, and can see that it has not changed, and has been reliably preserved. We have over 100,000 scroll fragments and complete versions of all Old Testament books dating from 300 B.C. to 50 A.D. There is no longer a credible basis for claiming the Old Testament was shoddily preserved because we now have strong evidence the Bible we have today was preserved reliably for 2,000 years of history, and was organized in its current form by that time. To have been accepted as fact all books had to have been written a good 500 years earlier or so, too. Many of the claims that critics have made over the years, that Nineveh could not have existed (we've excavated it), that the Canaanites didn't exist (steles show otherwise), and that a code as Mosaic Law couldn't have existed so early (we found the Code of Hammurabi and at least one other ancient law as well even older in Mesopotamia) have all shown to be demonstrably false. Critics are just making ridiculous, off-the-wall criticisms of the Bible that get debunked by archaeology time after time, yet expect people to keep believing their newest anti-Biblical conspiracy theories. --Joshua Zambrano 03:48, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

The bible isn't like that. Prodestant canon was written by far fewer people than even ONE hundred. The bible has 66 books, and several books were written by one person. Moses wrote 5, Paul wrote 13[1]. To say they didn't know each other is also false. Psalms was written by David, Proverbs was written mainly by Soloman, David's SON. In the New Testament, there are EVEN MORE connections. Matthew and John, both part of the 12, wrote gospels, and they certainly knew eachother. Mark knew Peter, and Luke travelled with Paul.
Very little was written from word of mouth, and the space between the writing of the Gospels and Jesus' life was short for myths to develop. Most were written fairly close to the event, except Genesis. Moreover, the bible hasn't changed. The Old Testament was carefully maintained by the Israelites, and the New Testament was equally kept. There are few discrepencies, and the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls even showed that our modern bibles have not changed since then. The bible is perhaps definately the world's most reliable manuscript. Conservapedian

Oops. Well, I was rushed when I made that edit. It doesn't really change the bible's reliability, though. --Conservapedian 14:53, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

yes it is, because it has been most successful of all the religions in the world, claiming more beleivers then any other (that is what ultimatley determines how good (is that grammatically correct?) a religion is)-Greenmeanie 02:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, because ours is true and has evidence to back that up. Dford 11:14, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

No

That's like asking which piece of fiction is better than any other - it's personal perference. If, like me, you are an atheist, then they are all equally poor. --Cgday 06:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Stating that one religion is superior to others directly leads to religion-based wars and oppression of other opinions.

You know, the only true difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a sharp disagreement over who God’s last true prophet was. If you are a Jew, it is one of those Old Testament dudes. If you are a Christian, it was Jesus Christ, if you are a Muslim, Mohammed was the last true prophet. I’m not counting all the other offshoots of the major religions of course. For example, I think the Mormons would consider Joseph Smith a prophet, whereas other Christian denominations do not. Dw1237200

I afree with Cgday. That's like arguing if the cat and the hat is better then hop on pop. Both are in the same catagory, but its all a matter of opinion. AtheistKathryn 23:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I am an Athiest but I see Judaism as the most respectable monotheistic religion, as it is the orginal monotheistic religion from which Christianity and Islam branched. Judaism seems to also be more believable... saying Jesus was the son of God is like saying Ghandi was the son of God. Sure, he was a good person but he wasn't divine.--Helios 23:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No, God is beyond the comprehension of man and thus beyond the scope of any one religious doctrine or organization. God reveals his mysteries to us in many ways. Everwill 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

God reveals his mysteries in many ways and in many religions, so shouldnt the superior religion be the religion that accepts all prophets from all religions, like buddist. --Loveandpeace 12:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

No. At the end of the world, Paul says we will all fall short of God's wishes for us. --Wikinterpretertalk?

ah. well i dont really think a religion is better than another.. a religion was first created to help one survey and percieve the world and to provide support. without it, m,any people would be lost. but i do not feel that there is an "optmila" or "true" religion...that part is just brinawash. =X KuR0K4R4

why do we fight over whose god is better?? and does it really matter in the end?

No. No religion is better than any other. They are all false, and therefore totally invalid.

I don't like any of them

Is the Truth superior to fiction?

When you go before your Creator I think then you will know the answer to that question. Or instead of just posting baiting questions here you actually go on a personal journey to find out for yourself.--Roopilots6 20:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I find your lack of faith inspiring. It shows that you are comforrable within your life without needing to ask an invisible being to make it better. And i would like to see a religious person come up with an answer to those questions. Bolly Ottihw 09:16, 22 April 2007

I just saved a ton of money by switching to Geico...

That sounds ridiculously off topic, but when confronted with such a hideously slanted question.
I understand the website's desire to set itself apart from WIKI, but asking such a narrow-minded question,
isn't going to win anyone over, in fact, if I didn't have a profound curiousity in this site, I'd already
be long gone...--Markos88 21:03, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Bandwagon

Notice that only one religion has been picked as superior instead of asking which religion is superior and why? The subject is expected to attack such a unfair premise since it has targeted the one that seems to be a popular target for many of the commentors. This is the bandwagon propaganda technique.--Roopilots6 14:58, 12 October 2007 (EDT)